SD Best Team not making the playoffs? (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

I agree almost completely. As a Denver fan, I want Schottenheimer to stay in SD, too. I thought it was only fair to point out that they will not likely ever win a Super Bowl with Schottenheimer as their head coach. I like most of your comparisons above when it comes to coaches. However, I'll take the coaches you listed that have been to the Super Bowl and won it once or twice over those that have not. You know Schottenheimer has had the talent to work with, the winning regular season records to get several post season opportunities, and yet he just cannot get it done.

You would rather have Gruden than Schottenheimer? You would rather have Billick than Schottenheimer? Give me a guy who ALWAYS has his team in contention over a guy who had one great year and a bunch of mediocre years, any day of the week.

It was a regular season game. Did you not read my original post? I'm talking about THE big game - the one he hasn't EVER made it to. Just to ease up a little, look at his post season record (I think a previous post said 5-12). That is definitely in the opposite direction of his regular season record. Fact is, SD has a lot of talent headed to the Pro Bowl. A team like that should have made it further along the road to the Super Bowl last year and should have at least made it to the road this year. As a Denver fan, I'm glad you have Marty in SD.

Remember last season, when columnists were joking that SD was the worst team on their schedule? The only reason there's a perception that there's so much talent on the Chargers is because Schotty has turned them into a powerhouse. This is the same cast of characters that went 4-12, for the most part. What, when they were 4-12, there was no talent, but when they went 12-4, all of a sudden those same guys were sublime talents? That's COACHING making a difference right there, my friend.And with that said, let's lay off of Schotty for never making the SB. If Elway never drives 98 1/2 yards at the end of the AFC Championship game, or if Cleveland never has THE FUMBLE in the rematch, then he has a superbowl appearance. Would he be any better of a coach if that was the case? I mean, would he be so much better of a coach if his defense could have held for 3 minutes longer, or if his RB hadn't dropped the ball once? Would changing one of those things change Schottenheimer's entire career? Would he suddenly be a winner? I refuse to believe that a 3-minute stretch of time can define a coach's entire career. Schottenheimer is a winner, he just got sidelined by two of the greatest plays/series in NFL history- plays so huge, so historic, that they get Capital Letters. I mean, if Dwight Clark never makes "The Catch", is he a drastically worse WR? If Terrell Owens never catches the game-winner against Green Bay, is he no longer a superstar? If Joe Montana and the Niners dropped one of their 4 SBs, is he out of the discussion for the top 5 QBs ever? If Otto Graham missed the championship game on year and only made it 9 times in 10 seasons instead of 10 in a row, was his team suddenly chopped liver?

 

[Ghost Rider]

You would rather have Gruden than Schottenheimer? You would rather have Billick than Schottenheimer? Give me a guy who ALWAYS has his team in contention over a guy who had one great year and a bunch of mediocre years, any day of the week.

I would take Gruden over Schottenheimer in a heartbeat. Gruden has had a bunch of good years. Oakland was close to the Super Bowl the last two years he was in Oakland and then won the Super Bowl in his first season in TB. Since then, they have had to rebuild a bit, so he hasn't had any playoff success since, but that could all change in a few weeks.

Remember last season, when columnists were joking that SD was the worst team on their schedule? The only reason there's a perception that there's so much talent on the Chargers is because Schotty has turned them into a powerhouse. This is the same cast of characters that went 4-12, for the most part. What, when they were 4-12, there was no talent, but when they went 12-4, all of a sudden those same guys were sublime talents? That's COACHING making a difference right there, my friend.

The emergence of Drew Brees and Antonio Gates has a lot to do with San Diego drastically improving over the last two seasons. Considering Schottenheimer is more of a defensive coach, I find it hard to give him too much credit for Gates and Brees suddenly becoming upper echolon NFL players.

And with that said, let's lay off of Schotty for never making the SB. If Elway never drives 98 1/2 yards at the end of the AFC Championship game, or if Cleveland never has THE FUMBLE in the rematch, then he has a superbowl appearance. Would he be any better of a coach if that was the case? I mean, would he be so much better of a coach if his defense could have held for 3 minutes longer, or if his RB hadn't dropped the ball once? Would changing one of those things change Schottenheimer's entire career? Would he suddenly be a winner? I refuse to believe that a 3-minute stretch of time can define a coach's entire career. Schottenheimer is a winner, he just got sidelined by two of the greatest plays/series in NFL history- plays so huge, so historic, that they get Capital Letters. I mean, if Dwight Clark never makes "The Catch", is he a drastically worse WR? If Terrell Owens never catches the game-winner against Green Bay, is he no longer a superstar? If Joe Montana and the Niners dropped one of their 4 SBs, is he out of the discussion for the top 5 QBs ever? If Otto Graham missed the championship game on year and only made it 9 times in 10 seasons instead of 10 in a row, was his team suddenly chopped liver?

Very interesting points. You do have to admit, though, that Schottenheimer's teams have been dealt defeat by teams they shouldn't have lost to far too often in the playoffs, the most notable being last year's loss to the Jets and the Chiefs loss in '95 to a vastly inferior Colts team.

 

[da5exx]

It isn't in your quote below, but I've got to say that I like your signature about Mike Anderson - good stuff. Now to reply to your post and question(s)....

You would rather have Gruden than Schottenheimer? You would rather have Billick than Schottenheimer? Give me a guy who ALWAYS has his team in contention over a guy who had one great year and a bunch of mediocre years, any day of the week.

Most definitely YES. If you can't tell by the original post I made that started this whole thread, I really don't like Schottenheimer. As a coach he has a knack for creating winning seasons, building hopes up high, and then having a team fall apart on him. I listened to Sirius NFL's Afternoon Blitz this afternoon, and they spent the first five minutes of the show and several discussions into the show saying the same thing I'm saying in this post. You gotta look at the talent on SD and ask how have they crumbled the past couple of years? What do they have in common with other teams that have crumbled that should have won? Oh yeah, Schottenheimer.

It was a regular season game. Did you not read my original post? I'm talking about THE big game - the one he hasn't EVER made it to. Just to ease up a little, look at his post season record (I think a previous post said 5-12). That is definitely in the opposite direction of his regular season record.

Fact is, SD has a lot of talent headed to the Pro Bowl. A team like that should have made it further along the road to the Super Bowl last year and should have at least made it to the road this year. As a Denver fan, I'm glad you have Marty in SD.

Remember last season, when columnists were joking that SD was the worst team on their schedule? The only reason there's a perception that there's so much talent on the Chargers is because Schotty has turned them into a powerhouse. This is the same cast of characters that went 4-12, for the most part. What, when they were 4-12, there was no talent, but when they went 12-4, all of a sudden those same guys were sublime talents? That's COACHING making a difference right there, my friend.

The other reply to this that said Schottenheimer didn't have much to do with Brees and Gates coming into their own may or may not be right. I tend to think he is correct. Either way, as I said earlier, Marty can create teams that win in the regular season just not the post season.

And with that said, let's lay off of Schotty for never making the SB. If Elway never drives 98 1/2 yards at the end of the AFC Championship game, or if Cleveland never has THE FUMBLE in the rematch, then he has a superbowl appearance. Would he be any better of a coach if that was the case? I mean, would he be so much better of a coach if his defense could have held for 3 minutes longer, or if his RB hadn't dropped the ball once? Would changing one of those things change Schottenheimer's entire career? Would he suddenly be a winner? I refuse to believe that a 3-minute stretch of time can define a coach's entire career. Schottenheimer is a winner, he just got sidelined by two of the greatest plays/series in NFL history- plays so huge, so historic, that they get Capital Letters. I mean, if Dwight Clark never makes "The Catch", is he a drastically worse WR? If Terrell Owens never catches the game-winner against Green Bay, is he no longer a superstar? If Joe Montana and the Niners dropped one of their 4 SBs, is he out of the discussion for the top 5 QBs ever? If Otto Graham missed the championship game on year and only made it 9 times in 10 seasons instead of 10 in a row, was his team suddenly chopped liver?

I don't want a coach with bad luck. If anyone has enough bad luck to be a on the wrong end of two plays simply referred to as THE FUMBLE and THE DRIVE, there is no way I would want that coach. Period. If his name wasn't so long, people would say they had been "Schottenheimered" instead of "Munsoned". (Watch the movie Kingpin if you don't understand that last comment.) All of that bad luck boils down to coulda, woulda, shoulda. The teams and coaches that win the Super Bowl have documentaries and are destined to be remembered as winners. I'm afraid the only NFL films we'll be seeing Good Ol' Marty in are the ones documenting THE FUMBLE and THE DRIVE (and I really like those, too).

 

[Bri]

For weeks now I've heard that the Chargers "are possibly the best team that won't make the playoffs". Well, now the predictions are true. Should anyone really be surprised though? I don't think so. Schottenheimer may also be the winningest active coach in the league (if not, he's close) but he has NEVER been able to win the big game - I mean even get to the big game. For 3 decades (80s Browns, 90s Chiefs, 00s Chargers) he has coached a ton of talent. Teams that should have been championship teams that have suffered from "Marty Ball" and bad coaching decisions like letting Rich Gannon lead your team (90s Chiefs) to the playoffs only to bench him in favor of Elvis Grbac for the playoffs. One game and out. Now, the Chargers have half a dozen players headed to the Pro Bowl this year and probably more talent than Marty has ever worked with before, and they can't even make the playoffs. No excuses for the Chargers - you are what your record shows. However, I can't help but think they could easily be a Super Bowl team next year (or could have been the last couple of years) with a good coach. I'm not a Chargers fan, but as an overall football fan I wanted to make this point about Schottenheimer. In my mind, he should never be considered for the Hall of Fame (even though he will be) because when it counts he has only proven he knows how to lose and make bad decisions. And really, no one remembers or cares who is the best team not to make the playoffs or win the big game. That's why no one should remember or care about Schottenheimer until he can prove otherwise.

Anyone else agree or is it just me?

Marty has always been excellent at getting his team to the playoffs. The thing with him was that they don't win when they're in. I think you pretty much said that above. To start the year, I didn't expect SD to win this year but in a way I jumped on their bandwagon after a few weeks so I wound up being surprised they won't. I don't think they're a bad team so I don't think his job is at risk. Depending on whom you ask here Rivers will or won't fetch a sweet draft pick or player in a trade. They're already good, to add the guy Rivers fetches plus their usual picks.....they got a good future in SD IMO.

 

[Gr00vus]

Losing the KC game says quite a bit about where the Chargers are right now. That was a must win game and they choked. I think you have to lay some of the blame at the feet of the coaching staff. But you also have to recoginze that this is still a very young team, and they've been performing as you'd expect a young team to perform. They have moments of brilliance along with eye poppingly miserable performances. Week to week, even half to half they'd play differently - sometimes inspired sometimes lost. The level of talent they played this year was much more unforgiving of those times when they were lost than last year. I will be curious to see how they respond to this season, as I don't think they were quite prepared for the challenge heading into it.The game this week against Denver will also be telling. This one will be a test of Marty's coaching abilities as he's trying to make a meaningless game meaningful to his team. The Broncos are already talking about sitting their starters, so I'll be very curious as to how the Charger players respond to this one too.Hopefully they've now learned that you can't turn it on and turn it off, regardless of the underlying talent level. They need to play top notch for 60 minutes for all 16 games. Also hopefully the glaring weaknesses in the Charger team will be addressed this offseason - defensive backfield, special teams and offensive line.I think Marty has done a great job overall as Charger head coach to date. I honestly didn't expect much more than 9-7 from the Chargers this year and no playoffs, that to me was the natural progression for them from last season (the schedule being what it was etc.), so I'm not disappointed very much, and I am somewhat heartened at how they hung in there after their tough start and some tough losses. I think next year should see them really competitive for the AFC Championship, that is the next logically natural progression for them (assuming A.J. et. al do something about the existing problems, which so far they have been very good at doing, and no awful breaks).Come back next year and if the Chargers aren't getting past the first round in the playoffs then I might agree that Marty has outlived his usefullness to the Chargers.Until then, anyone casting aspersions on Marty's performance with the Chargers is simply uninformed.

 

[stbugs]

No, SD does not have the toughest schedule so far. The Washington Redskins had the toughest. Check out the Draft Order update link. So far the Redskins opponents have a .556 winning percentage and the Chargers opponents have a .538 winning percentage.

I think the Chargers' schedule was tougher than the Redskins' schedule. You can't just look at win percentage since teams play most of their games within their own conference -- so a .540 in the AFC may well be more impressive than a .560 in the NFC. Also, the Chargers had to play four games against teams coming off byes. And I believe the Chargers logged more travel miles than the Redskins did as well.Not that it really matters. The schedule is what it is, and teams just have to beat whoever lines up across from them. The Chargers won some games, but not enough to make the playoffs. Maybe next year.

But as an academic exercise, if we are trying to figure out who had the toughest schedule, my vote would go to the Chargers.

OK, I am just using the numbers. To be honest, the bye week thing is a little subjective as I don't know how those teams play after bye weeks.Actually, I just looked it up and here are the four teams that SD played after their bye week: Pittsburgh, Oakland, Philly and the Jets. Other than Pittsburgh, that doesn't seem real tough and if it weren't for the blocked kick they would have been 3-1 in those games.

As for miles, when do you think San Diego will ever not log more miles than most teams? Even the games against Oakland in their own state are farther than Washington's trips to Philly and New York.

I don't know, but I think there has just been a lot of sympathy for the Chargers on this board, and I think that the Redskins had a tougher schedule. Don't forget that the Redskins played Seattle, Denver, KC (after KC's bye), San Diego, Chicago, Tampa Bay, Dallas twice, and NY Giants twice. That is 7 games against playoff teams and 3 games against teams that are still alive as of Week 16. Not until after this week, will the Chargers have played 7 games against playoff teams and 3 games against teams that are still alive as of Week 17.

Edit to Add: While I still think the Redskins schedule is tougher, we are talking about splitting hairs as they both played almost identical schedules since the AFC West played the NFC East.

 

[SSOG]

OK, I am just using the numbers. To be honest, the bye week thing is a little subjective as I don't know how those teams play after bye weeks.

Actually, I just looked it up and here are the four teams that SD played after their bye week: Pittsburgh, Oakland, Philly and the Jets. Other than Pittsburgh, that doesn't seem real tough and if it weren't for the blocked kick they would have been 3-1 in those games.

As for miles, when do you think San Diego will ever not log more miles than most teams? Even the games against Oakland in their own state are farther than Washington's trips to Philly and New York.

I don't know, but I think there has just been a lot of sympathy for the Chargers on this board, and I think that the Redskins had a tougher schedule. Don't forget that the Redskins played Seattle, Denver, KC (after KC's bye), San Diego, Chicago, Tampa Bay, Dallas twice, and NY Giants twice. That is 7 games against playoff teams and 3 games against teams that are still alive as of Week 16. Not until after this week, will the Chargers have played 7 games against playoff teams and 3 games against teams that are still alive as of Week 17.

Edit to Add: While I still think the Redskins schedule is tougher, we are talking about splitting hairs as they both played almost identical schedules since the AFC West played the NFC East.

There's an independent website that charts the results of every single play in every single game and compares them to league averages, adjusting for down, distance, and opponant (meaning 2 yards on 3rd-and-2 against the Bears = fantastic, while 2 yards on 1st-and-10 against the Texans = horrible). They then add up the totals of every play and use that to rank all the teams. They then release "Strength of Schedule" rankings. It's a pretty objective measure of teams and their schedules. You can agree with their methodology or disagree with it, but it *IS* objective. According to them, San Diego has had the #1 hardest schedule in the entire NFL this season, and Washington's was 11th. And they didn't even factor in considerations such as "teams coming off of a bye week" or "trips to the east coast", they went solely on opponent strength. In fact, the entire AFC West wound up with one of the 10 hardest schedules in the NFL. Only the AFC North had even TWO teams with top-10 schedules (AFC North, with Baltimore and Cleveland). No other division had more than 1 team in the top 10.The link is www.footballoutsiders.com if you want to check it out. If you're interested in statistical analysis of football, or ever have thought that ranking teams' offenses and defenses strictly by the number of yards they ring up is stupid, then it's the site for you.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The link is www.footballoutsiders.com if you want to check it out.

Maybe I shouldn't be endorsing other football-related websites ( ), but they really do some interesting stuff at footballoutsiders.com.

 

[stbugs]

OK, I am just using the numbers. To be honest, the bye week thing is a little subjective as I don't know how those teams play after bye weeks.

Actually, I just looked it up and here are the four teams that SD played after their bye week: Pittsburgh, Oakland, Philly and the Jets. Other than Pittsburgh, that doesn't seem real tough and if it weren't for the blocked kick they would have been 3-1 in those games.

As for miles, when do you think San Diego will ever not log more miles than most teams? Even the games against Oakland in their own state are farther than Washington's trips to Philly and New York.

I don't know, but I think there has just been a lot of sympathy for the Chargers on this board, and I think that the Redskins had a tougher schedule. Don't forget that the Redskins played Seattle, Denver, KC (after KC's bye), San Diego, Chicago, Tampa Bay, Dallas twice, and NY Giants twice. That is 7 games against playoff teams and 3 games against teams that are still alive as of Week 16. Not until after this week, will the Chargers have played 7 games against playoff teams and 3 games against teams that are still alive as of Week 17.

Edit to Add: While I still think the Redskins schedule is tougher, we are talking about splitting hairs as they both played almost identical schedules since the AFC West played the NFC East.

There's an independent website that charts the results of every single play in every single game and compares them to league averages, adjusting for down, distance, and opponant (meaning 2 yards on 3rd-and-2 against the Bears = fantastic, while 2 yards on 1st-and-10 against the Texans = horrible). They then add up the totals of every play and use that to rank all the teams. They then release "Strength of Schedule" rankings. It's a pretty objective measure of teams and their schedules. You can agree with their methodology or disagree with it, but it *IS* objective. According to them, San Diego has had the #1 hardest schedule in the entire NFL this season, and Washington's was 11th. And they didn't even factor in considerations such as "teams coming off of a bye week" or "trips to the east coast", they went solely on opponent strength. In fact, the entire AFC West wound up with one of the 10 hardest schedules in the NFL. Only the AFC North had even TWO teams with top-10 schedules (AFC North, with Baltimore and Cleveland). No other division had more than 1 team in the top 10.The link is www.footballoutsiders.com if you want to check it out. If you're interested in statistical analysis of football, or ever have thought that ranking teams' offenses and defenses strictly by the number of yards they ring up is stupid, then it's the site for you.

Call me crazy but I guess I don't agree with their methodology. I couldn't find their SOS because the Search always went to a page not found, but I found it interesting that SD could be #1 and Washington could be #11.Here are their common opponents:

Dallas (Washington played them twice)

NY Giants (Washington played them twice)

Oakland (SD played them twice)

KC (SD played them twice)

Denver (SD will play them twice)

Philly (Washington will play them twice)

So 9 games are against common opponents. They also played each other in the 10th "common" game and since the game went to OT and they are both 9-6, I would call that a wash. It seems weird that with so many common games (10 out of 16) and the fact that Washington also played 3 other playoff teams (Seattle, Chicago and Tampa Bay), that Washington could be considered 10 spots below. SD only played 3 other playoff teams (NE, Pitt and Indy). Right now, I would say that group is better than Seattle, Chicago and TB, but at the time SD played NE and Pitt they opened the season with a combined 7-6 record. SD is getting the benefit of NE and Pitt playing much better now.

The NFC East played the AFC West this year so there was a lot of crossover. In fact, if the Giants beat Oakland this week then the intra-division games will end up as 8 wins for the NFC East and 8 wins for the AFC West, so I would call those divisions pretty even.

Oh well, I am officially done on this one.

Just a footnote, Maurile mentioned that .540 against the AFC is better than .560 against the NFC. After this weekend, it looks like the conference head to head will end up at 34 wins for AFC and 30 for NFC. I would call that almost even just based on my knowledge of the Redskins who at 0-4 against the AFC, could have easily swung that into a winning record for the NFC since they lost to Denver by missing a game tying 2 point conversion with 1 minute left, lost to SD in overtime with a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter, lost to Oakland on a FG with 1 minute left with a 3 point lead in the 4th quarter and lost to KC by 7 on a 60 yard TD pass when it was tied to start the 4th quarter.